At 15:33 15/06/99 +0200, Martin William Smith wrote:

>Why?  *Only* because you say it *must* be that way.  Suppose we have a
>socialist system that makes bicycles.

You still do not get it.  A socialist system would not make bicycles and
bicycles alone, any more than a capitalist system makes bicycles now.
There's really no point arguing this with you any more - if no-one else on
this list can get you to nuderstand economic systems in their entirety, I'm
probably not going to have any luck either.

>> *I* don't measure wealth by money - but I'd be interested to hear how the
>> term "equality of individual wealth" can apply to the armed forces.
>
>The armed forces, which are a subset of what we are referring to as
>the military, are composed of individuals, ie people.  The term
>"equality of individual wealth" applies in the not so obvious way.

*What* not so obvious way?  Because the obvious way would be if they were
all, for example, paid at the same rate.  I do not see how "equality of
individual wealth" can be used to describe inequalities of individual wealth.

>No.  I object.  You deleted, and did not answer, the question that
>revealed the absurdity of your position.

If you say so.  There is a difference between not producing and being
unproductive.  I suppose - if you wished to take this argument to the
absurd levels you seem to prefer - teachers produce educated people,
doctors healthy ones, and the military "produce" dead ones.

>> Whatever.
>
>For the record, a "Whatever" is an acknowledgement by wave off of a
>certain correctness of the argument being waved off.

No.  "Whatever" means I think you're wrong, but it's not worth the bother
trying to convince you of that.

>centuries, millenia even, Australians didn't even know Norway existed.
>Bartlett still doesn't know much about it.

Are you trying to be a dickhead or is this your natural 'debating' style?

>Question: Why can't a socialist system cooperate with a capitalist one?
>
>Answer: Because Alister would grind his teeth at night over the
>thought that someone, somewhere, might be getting rich.

Answer - because socialism, by its nature, is non-competitive.  But this is
getting no-where, and boring the shit out of every subscriber to this list,
with maybe two exceptions (and I'm not one of those).

Alister
--

"Let us not fool ourselves, half a century after the adoption
of this Declaration (of Human Rights) and supposedly under its
protection, millions of people have died in the world without
reaching the age of 50 and without even knowing that there was
a universal document that should have protected them."
         Roberto Robaina, Cuba's Foreign Minister